A federally enabled Internet kill switch will place an Internet Off Button in the White House which can be used to instantly deactivate the Internet in case of an emergency, such as the plebes getting riled up. This bill, introduced to the Senate on April Fools, is expected to pass.
The guy in the white house may soon be able to take out the Internet when those who inhabit it publish information that is embarrassing to him, but there are other methods of digital conversation, such as Packet Radio, Ham Radio satellites, and other Amateur Radio communications methods.
We will truly know that we are an occupied nation when the white house declares ham radio to be illegal. One of the first steps of any tyranny is the control of information
If you are going to Afghanistan and you are a Slashdot reader then it is quite likely that you are going to Afghanistan as a solder.
If that is the case then you should say good by to your family or don't go at all. It is your choice. Your country doesn't depend on the status of Afghanistan for its freedom or economic security. Your family depends on you for its freedom or economic security. If you go to the other side of the world for some vague and undefined reason like duty or honor, then you are betraying your family.
Umm...no.
I've been a soldier for over 20 years, an officer in the Army, and just got back from a year in Iraq. While communicating with your family back home can distract you some from the mission (and yes, I've seen it happen with my troops), it has been my experience that those soldiers who call home regularly are much less likely to have marital problems or divorce when we get back home. A deployment is typically much harder on the families back home than it is on the deployed soldier, and checking in every day or two, even if only by email, can often not only ease the fear and stress on the family back home, but keep the relationship alive.
Every soldier has difficulties re-adjusting to life back home after a deployment, but adding the stress and isolation of the lack of communication for a year to the mix is a sure-fire way to make the situation worse.
Based on your post, I believe you may have some issues in this area. If you desire some assistance, or maybe just somebody to talk to, I'd be happy to help you find a confidential counselor who may be able to help.
I haven't been to Afghanistan yet, but just got back from Iraq. Some things to consider:
AT&T trailers, when available, are usually pretty expensive. However the Chaplains usually have AT&T cards to give away so that you can call home.
I know that many FOB's in Iraq have civilian Internet available, and many do not. Ours did, but it was very expensive and had poor bandwidth. We purchased our own satellite system, but many FOBs (especially where AAFES is the Internet provider) won't allow you to have your own satellite system. This is so that the FOB commander can "pull one plug" if something happens and not have to worry about somebody emailing home about the incident. There's no real way to stop this, but it makes commanders feel better. If you are relatively sure about the FOB to which you're deploying, see if you can contact the signal folks at that FOB and see if there are any restrictions on personally-owned satellite Internet.
We purchased a satellite and service from Macrosat. They had the best rates we could find, no data cap, and the service was phenomenal. They let us try various band plans for a couple of days each until we found the one that best met our needs. We had about 70 people on our link, which was the 3meg down and 512k up, and what with shift work and all it was sufficient. Not great, but sufficient. We ended up paying $200 each for the equipment, I think, and then $50/month each for the service. MAKE SURE THEY KNOW IT'S FOR AFGHANISTAN! We had one provider prior to Macrosat sell us a U.S.-only satellite system, and we had a hell of a time getting our money back.
I purchased a Vonage router and plan, and put it in the commo shop for anybody to use. I chose a U.S. phone number that was local to most of our troops, and put a regular wireless phone (encrypted 5.8GHZ) on the router. Our family members were able to call us when emergencies arose and we were able to call home quite well. We had to cut down the call quality to ensure enough bandwidth, and there was plenty of lag during heavy Internet-usage times, but it went a long way to keeping the stress down. The cost after taxes and all was around $31 per month, and we could dial anywhere in the U.S., which was nice for the guys who got attached to us from other states.
If you do go with MacroSat, or any other satellite Internet provider, you will probably want to get a satellite meter/finder. Check with your provider to ensure that you can get one that's compatible with your dish. It will save you HOURS of trying to get the danged dish pointed at the correct satellite. It's well worth the money.
You will need to ensure that your troops are not doing peer-to-peer with a satellite Internet connection. This is because that upload pipe gets saturated FAST. We typed up a user agreement that stated that each user wouldn't use peer-to-peer and that we reserved the right to boot the user from the agreement if they violated it. Unfortunately sometimes the user doesn't realize that when they're downloading that movie, that it's using peer-to-peer software. My solution was to purchase a Linksys WRT54GL and replace the firmware with Tomato, which gave me the ability to:
Assign one IP to each MAC to help ensure only subscribers got access
Slow down peer-to-peer traffic (blocking the ports entirely just makes the port-agile software find a new port. Throttling the bandwidth on the port keeps the same port, but preserves the bandwidth for legitimate uses)
See who was using peer-to-peer software, and work with them to disable or remove it.
Please, PLEASE ensure that all of your troops understand that ANY personal communications are monitored by the enemy. At our FOB, we knew that Iran was monitoring our cellphone communications, and probably the scatter from some of our satellite comms as well. Saying "I love you" is okay. Giving out y
Re:Private enterprise is so much more efficient
on
The Electronic Bastille
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, in the United States there are already private companies that gather all of this information and offer it for sale. I know this for a fact, as in my civilian job I work for a state law enforcement agency that purchases this product for criminal intelligence investigations.
I can't remember the name of the service we use, and I'm in Iraq so I can't go down the hall to ask our any of our intelligence analysts what the software is, I just recall that they output information in a format that works with Analyst Notebook (tm).
Whenever I am looking for applicants for one of our software engineering jobs, I pay particularly close attention to the applicants' resumes. Considering that a resume is often the only chance for a person to showcase themselves to a prospective employer, it would be difficult to over-emphasize the importance of a resume. Specifically, I look for errors in spelling and grammar (their/they're/there, two/too/to, etc). Just about all word-processing software comes with spell-checking and grammar-checking built-in, and if an applicant can't even run spell-check on a resume, I won't bother to interview him or her. I don't believe that a person willing to submit a resume with such basic mistakes is going to have the attention-to-detail required to be an effective software engineer.
My suggestion: in the class in which you intend to prepare the students for a job, ensure that you spend one or two class periods on ensuring that they have presentable resumes.
If Red Hat had a more reasonable price structure, they may get more revenue.
In my civilian job we use both RedHat and CentOS servers. Because we can't afford the RedHat fees for all of the servers on which we use linux, we pay RedHat for three "production" servers, and use CentOS for all of our "development" servers.
I'd rather pay RedHat for all of them, but considering that I always get better (and faster) support from the various forums and email lists than I do from RedHat (I get so TIRED of waiting on hold), I can't easily justify doing so to my boss. At least he understands that paying RedHat SOMETHING will help keep them alive longer, which keeps CentOS alive as well.
There have been several posts about the difficulty in resizing rings made out of Titanium or Iridium, but just make the ring a bit bigger and get a clear cushioned ring insert. Not only will the ring be more comfortable, but if your finger grows you can remove the insert and still wear the ring.
Yes, you are correct, that paragraph was off-topic. So is this reply, for which I apologize if somebody finds it a waste of time. If so, don't read it.;)
Yep, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take this oath seriously, and have done so for the past 21 years. I believe that the fact that we in the armed forces swear that oath, as opposed to an oath to a particular individual or group of individuals is one of the primary reasons that this country is so strong.
That being said, I was in the California National Guard during the Los Angeles riots. When I said that I was "not enthusiastic" at the idea of being called out to keep the peace, it's because I've had to do so before and it is most definitely not a fun thing to have to point a loaded rifle at a fellow citizen, no matter the cause.
Would I do my duty if called upon to do so? Yes, absolutely, just as I have in the past. Would I enjoy being forced to use deadly force if such a thing happened? Definitely not. And I submit that it is precisely this distaste that continues to prove that I am still fit to wear the uniform.
Interesting idea, but I believe that this would cause a constitutional crisis, as the "winning" candidate and his/her party attempt to hang on to the presidency by "proving" that the fix didn't happen and that the encrypted message was a hoax, and the "losing" candidate and party demanding a re-vote.
As a member of the National Guard, I view this scenario with horror, as I'm one of the guys that would probably be called out to keep the peace. Not something I look upon with any enthusiasm...
I would think that the primary "big deal" would be programming talent.
Way back when, the government used proprietary, government-programmed operating systems and software for stuff, and it rarely worked and it was difficult to find programmers to maintain or update the software. This way, by using a processor that can run a well-known, well-liked, popular OS that has literally millions of enthusiastic programmers available, it shouldn't be difficult to get critical software written or maintained.
You also won't need to re-invent the wheel for common modules, and your programmers can therefore concentrate on the stuff that is unique to your application of the hardware.
Sure, until you hit them in the wallet. If your fob was used to access something against policy and you're suspended for a semester, you're unlikely to do it again, and neither are your friends...
At my work we use two-factor authentication. (We use RSA SmartID tokens and a RADIUS server, but other similar systems are available.) Two factor authentication relies on something you know (in this case, a PIN number), and something you have (in our case, a hardware key-fob that generates a pseudo-random number every 60 seconds). We use this to allow VPN connections into our network while on the road.
The price for these tokens is coming down to the point where banks are considering giving them to their customers who wish to bank online, I don't see why universities couldn't use them to allow access to their network, whether via Ethernet or wireless.
If your keyfob is lost or stolen, you report it immediately and the IT department disables that fob and issues a new one, presumably with a fee. Otherwise, you are held accountable for whatever is done with your account.
I'd imagine that this fob would also allow you to access any of the other services that are typically offered online by universities (access to library resources, registering for classes online, etc).
It's not that difficult to store information as to which IP address is issued to which account during which time, we do it at work.
I've been in the military for 21 years now, partly because I love our Constitution and believe that somebody has to be willing to sacrifice for its defense. I've also been a Republican for my adult voting life. However, it's events like this that make me question both situations.
The Right will let me keep my firearms, but will steal my computer. The Left will let me keep my computer, but will steal my firearms. What is a reasonable person to do these days????
I'm a Captain in the Army National Guard. The United States Army has purchased an enterprise license of Rosetta Stone for all soldiers, both active duty and reserve. In fact, I'm slated to go to Iraq next year and I've already started on Rosetta Stone, purchase a couple of off-line CD-based study aids, and have started Arabic lessons with a native speaker.
I do this for several reasons:
Because I can't very well help the Iraqi people if I can't communicate with them
Because I wish to be a respectful guest, as I would when going anywhere, or to anybody's home
Because I refuse to spend a year in another country without knowing at least the basics of the language
Because I refuse to spend a year in the birthplace of human civilization without at least trying to see some of the great sites of mankind, and knowing the language will help
We soldiers aren't the brutish thugs that CNN loves to depict on the evening news.
Collaborative "reporting" attracts only those people that have some vested interest or an axe to grind. That vested interest distorts most people's sense of whether their own opinion is valid or objective, and makes their contributions highly suspect (in terms of actual journalism). Someone truly objective is practicing a true skill/profession, and if they're any good at it, they're usually going to be looking for an actual job at it. And what makes someone who IS a professional journalist skip on over to a collaborative arena, for no pay, to work on some other material? Personal vested interest in that topic area, and the resulting lack of objectivity on that particular topic.
Um, not necessarily. I've noticed that several "news organizations" such as NPR, CNN and AP have decided to report a "higher truth", and are willing to distort inconvenient facts to "educate" the world (read - make them think what we want them to think).
I'm in the military and I know several people who's integrity I trust without question who are or were stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And all too often the stories reported on CNN or NPR or by AP do NOT reflect the reality of the situation as told to me by these trusted people. Instead, facts are distorted or omitted or created so that the story can have the impact that the "journalist" or "editor" desires, to sway public opinion in the desired direction.
From these incidents, I've learned that I can't trust any one news source. I still listen to NPR, but now I'm forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh (whose show and personality I don't like) in order to get a completely different view of any given story. I've found that if I listen to NPR, Mr. Limbaugh, CNN and Fox, I can usually figure out an approximation of what really happened.
All that being said, I think that the idea given in the story is a very good one. They may not be polished professionals with political views to impress upon us poor dumb Americans, but they will definitely have a variety of views and opinions. And if the diversity of the reporters is wide enough, then perhaps all of the differing opinions/political viewpoints/etc will come out in the wash, and we'll get some actual facts and news out of the whole thing.
"virtually no dissent in the scientific community"? Um...sorry, could you cite a source that isn't in the DNC's back pocket? This is the whole point! Any time any scientist attempts to refute the science, the liberal left starts calling them hate-mongers. This is *supposed* to be an objective, scientific debate with any given scientist free to discuss their findings. It's *not* supposed to be a political free-for-all where anybody that disputes Al Gore is portrayed as an imbecile who should (and apparently does) have their funding cut.
I don't hear him saying "you media people! Stop reporting views that oppose mine!" That would be too blatant. But a liberal of Gore's stature starts criticizing journalists and saying that by covering the the opposing view they "made a bad choice"....well, I read that as saying "shut up!" in politics-speak.
Do a google search on Al Gore Balance is Bias.
You'll get a bunch of returns of a couple of his speeches. Basically, anybody who reports both sides of the story are being irresponsible. Anybody who doesn't subscribe to his belief is obviously wrong and should be censored:
"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly -- and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen... balance as bias.
"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.
"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."
Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.
The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers). However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares. So what is the next step? trying to kill civilians and others off, using this robot technology. Singapore is starting a race for the next level of warfare. First nuclear was created, now robots.
Actually, that is incorrect. The point of war is to enforce your society's political will upon your opponent's society. This usually involves "defeating" your enemy.
Defeat is an event that occurs in your opponent's mind. He is defeated when he is convinced that he is defeated, that it is no longer worthwhile to resist, or that the cost of resistance is too high to pay.
Creating defeat in the mind of the enemy is an inherently psychological operation, because different societies and individuals have different values and different ideas as to when it is acceptable to surrender and when it is not. In some societies it is never acceptable to surrender, in others it is acceptable if there no longer remains any viable way to effectively resist.
Classically there have been a few ways to defeat your enemy, aside from completely annihilating him:
Somehow convince your enemy that if he continues to resist, you can and will completely annihilate him and his unit.
Destroy your opponent's infrastructure such that he cannot continue the fight or even feed his own people.
Note that destruction of resources is a perfectly valid way to wage war, and has been so for all of recorded history. If you threaten a man with violence, he will often fight back. If you threaten his ability to feed his family, he will often submit.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/040209-obama-cybersecurity-bill.html
A federally enabled Internet kill switch will place an Internet Off Button in the White House which can be used to instantly deactivate the Internet in case of an emergency, such as the plebes getting riled up. This bill, introduced to the Senate on April Fools, is expected to pass.
The guy in the white house may soon be able to take out the Internet when those who inhabit it publish information that is embarrassing to him, but there are other methods of digital conversation, such as Packet Radio, Ham Radio satellites, and other Amateur Radio communications methods.
We will truly know that we are an occupied nation when the white house declares ham radio to be illegal. One of the first steps of any tyranny is the control of information
If you are going to Afghanistan and you are a Slashdot reader then it is quite likely that you are going to Afghanistan as a solder.
If that is the case then you should say good by to your family or don't go at all. It is your choice. Your country doesn't depend on the status of Afghanistan for its freedom or economic security. Your family depends on you for its freedom or economic security. If you go to the other side of the world for some vague and undefined reason like duty or honor, then you are betraying your family.
Umm...no.
I've been a soldier for over 20 years, an officer in the Army, and just got back from a year in Iraq. While communicating with your family back home can distract you some from the mission (and yes, I've seen it happen with my troops), it has been my experience that those soldiers who call home regularly are much less likely to have marital problems or divorce when we get back home. A deployment is typically much harder on the families back home than it is on the deployed soldier, and checking in every day or two, even if only by email, can often not only ease the fear and stress on the family back home, but keep the relationship alive.
Every soldier has difficulties re-adjusting to life back home after a deployment, but adding the stress and isolation of the lack of communication for a year to the mix is a sure-fire way to make the situation worse.
Based on your post, I believe you may have some issues in this area. If you desire some assistance, or maybe just somebody to talk to, I'd be happy to help you find a confidential counselor who may be able to help.
I haven't been to Afghanistan yet, but just got back from Iraq. Some things to consider:
Actually, in the United States there are already private companies that gather all of this information and offer it for sale. I know this for a fact, as in my civilian job I work for a state law enforcement agency that purchases this product for criminal intelligence investigations.
I can't remember the name of the service we use, and I'm in Iraq so I can't go down the hall to ask our any of our intelligence analysts what the software is, I just recall that they output information in a format that works with Analyst Notebook (tm).
Whenever I am looking for applicants for one of our software engineering jobs, I pay particularly close attention to the applicants' resumes. Considering that a resume is often the only chance for a person to showcase themselves to a prospective employer, it would be difficult to over-emphasize the importance of a resume. Specifically, I look for errors in spelling and grammar (their/they're/there, two/too/to, etc). Just about all word-processing software comes with spell-checking and grammar-checking built-in, and if an applicant can't even run spell-check on a resume, I won't bother to interview him or her. I don't believe that a person willing to submit a resume with such basic mistakes is going to have the attention-to-detail required to be an effective software engineer.
My suggestion: in the class in which you intend to prepare the students for a job, ensure that you spend one or two class periods on ensuring that they have presentable resumes.
If Red Hat had a more reasonable price structure, they may get more revenue.
In my civilian job we use both RedHat and CentOS servers. Because we can't afford the RedHat fees for all of the servers on which we use linux, we pay RedHat for three "production" servers, and use CentOS for all of our "development" servers.
I'd rather pay RedHat for all of them, but considering that I always get better (and faster) support from the various forums and email lists than I do from RedHat (I get so TIRED of waiting on hold), I can't easily justify doing so to my boss. At least he understands that paying RedHat SOMETHING will help keep them alive longer, which keeps CentOS alive as well.
There have been several posts about the difficulty in resizing rings made out of Titanium or Iridium, but just make the ring a bit bigger and get a clear cushioned ring insert. Not only will the ring be more comfortable, but if your finger grows you can remove the insert and still wear the ring.
Yes, you are correct, that paragraph was off-topic. So is this reply, for which I apologize if somebody finds it a waste of time. If so, don't read it. ;)
Yep, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take this oath seriously, and have done so for the past 21 years. I believe that the fact that we in the armed forces swear that oath, as opposed to an oath to a particular individual or group of individuals is one of the primary reasons that this country is so strong.
That being said, I was in the California National Guard during the Los Angeles riots. When I said that I was "not enthusiastic" at the idea of being called out to keep the peace, it's because I've had to do so before and it is most definitely not a fun thing to have to point a loaded rifle at a fellow citizen, no matter the cause.
Would I do my duty if called upon to do so? Yes, absolutely, just as I have in the past. Would I enjoy being forced to use deadly force if such a thing happened? Definitely not. And I submit that it is precisely this distaste that continues to prove that I am still fit to wear the uniform.
Interesting idea, but I believe that this would cause a constitutional crisis, as the "winning" candidate and his/her party attempt to hang on to the presidency by "proving" that the fix didn't happen and that the encrypted message was a hoax, and the "losing" candidate and party demanding a re-vote.
As a member of the National Guard, I view this scenario with horror, as I'm one of the guys that would probably be called out to keep the peace. Not something I look upon with any enthusiasm...
I would think that the primary "big deal" would be programming talent.
Way back when, the government used proprietary, government-programmed operating systems and software for stuff, and it rarely worked and it was difficult to find programmers to maintain or update the software. This way, by using a processor that can run a well-known, well-liked, popular OS that has literally millions of enthusiastic programmers available, it shouldn't be difficult to get critical software written or maintained.
You also won't need to re-invent the wheel for common modules, and your programmers can therefore concentrate on the stuff that is unique to your application of the hardware.
Sure, until you hit them in the wallet. If your fob was used to access something against policy and you're suspended for a semester, you're unlikely to do it again, and neither are your friends...
At my work we use two-factor authentication. (We use RSA SmartID tokens and a RADIUS server, but other similar systems are available.) Two factor authentication relies on something you know (in this case, a PIN number), and something you have (in our case, a hardware key-fob that generates a pseudo-random number every 60 seconds). We use this to allow VPN connections into our network while on the road.
The price for these tokens is coming down to the point where banks are considering giving them to their customers who wish to bank online, I don't see why universities couldn't use them to allow access to their network, whether via Ethernet or wireless.
If your keyfob is lost or stolen, you report it immediately and the IT department disables that fob and issues a new one, presumably with a fee. Otherwise, you are held accountable for whatever is done with your account.
I'd imagine that this fob would also allow you to access any of the other services that are typically offered online by universities (access to library resources, registering for classes online, etc).
It's not that difficult to store information as to which IP address is issued to which account during which time, we do it at work.
I've been in the military for 21 years now, partly because I love our Constitution and believe that somebody has to be willing to sacrifice for its defense. I've also been a Republican for my adult voting life. However, it's events like this that make me question both situations. The Right will let me keep my firearms, but will steal my computer. The Left will let me keep my computer, but will steal my firearms. What is a reasonable person to do these days????
I do this for several reasons:
- Because I can't very well help the Iraqi people if I can't communicate with them
- Because I wish to be a respectful guest, as I would when going anywhere, or to anybody's home
- Because I refuse to spend a year in another country without knowing at least the basics of the language
- Because I refuse to spend a year in the birthplace of human civilization without at least trying to see some of the great sites of mankind, and knowing the language will help
We soldiers aren't the brutish thugs that CNN loves to depict on the evening news."virtually no dissent in the scientific community"? Um...sorry, could you cite a source that isn't in the DNC's back pocket? This is the whole point! Any time any scientist attempts to refute the science, the liberal left starts calling them hate-mongers. This is *supposed* to be an objective, scientific debate with any given scientist free to discuss their findings. It's *not* supposed to be a political free-for-all where anybody that disputes Al Gore is portrayed as an imbecile who should (and apparently does) have their funding cut.
I don't hear him saying "you media people! Stop reporting views that oppose mine!" That would be too blatant. But a liberal of Gore's stature starts criticizing journalists and saying that by covering the the opposing view they "made a bad choice"....well, I read that as saying "shut up!" in politics-speak.
That's funny, I seem to recall that Al Gore was calling for censorship of anybody who disagreed with his climatology viewpoint. Was I wrong?
Actually, that is incorrect. The point of war is to enforce your society's political will upon your opponent's society. This usually involves "defeating" your enemy.
Defeat is an event that occurs in your opponent's mind. He is defeated when he is convinced that he is defeated, that it is no longer worthwhile to resist, or that the cost of resistance is too high to pay.
Creating defeat in the mind of the enemy is an inherently psychological operation, because different societies and individuals have different values and different ideas as to when it is acceptable to surrender and when it is not. In some societies it is never acceptable to surrender, in others it is acceptable if there no longer remains any viable way to effectively resist.
Classically there have been a few ways to defeat your enemy, aside from completely annihilating him:
Note that destruction of resources is a perfectly valid way to wage war, and has been so for all of recorded history. If you threaten a man with violence, he will often fight back. If you threaten his ability to feed his family, he will often submit.